Laserfiche WebLink
(e)- make contracts, execute instruments, and do all <br />things necessary or convenient in the exercise of powers <br />granted in the Municipal Industrial Development section <br />(Minn. Stat. S 469.155, Subd. 8). <br />It may not operate a project as a business, and it <br />may not expend funds on a project other than the revenues <br />of the project or the proceeds of revenue bonds and notes <br />or other funds granted to the municipality or authority <br />for industrial development purposes. Since an EDA may <br />exercise HRA powers for the purpose of "industrial <br />development, and since an HRA has clear authority to <br />operate a project, this limitation has been overridden by <br />other provisions of the statute. <br />C. Constitutional Concerns <br />1. Public Purpose Doctrine <br />Public funds may be used only for public purposes. <br />Minnesota Constitution, Article X, S1. ( "taxes shall be . <br />levied and collected for public purposes "). Minnesota <br />Constitution, Article XII, Si. ( "The Legislature shall pass <br />no local or special laws . . . authorizing public taxation for <br />a private purpose. ") <br />The Minnesota Supreme Court has given a broad <br />interpretation to the meaning of public purpose, holding that <br />such meaning "is ever evolving in light of contemporary <br />conditions." Minnesota Energy & Economic Development <br />Authority v. Printy, 351 N.W.2d, 319, 338 (Minn. 1984). <br />Moreover, legislative determinations of public purpose, while <br />not binding on the courts, are entitled to great weight. In <br />fact, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that "a reviewing <br />court should overrule a legislative determination that a <br />particular expenditure is made for a public purpose only if <br />that determination is manifestly arbitrary and capricious." <br />R.E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 269 N.W.2d, 331, 337 <br />(Minn. 1978). <br />In making its determination, the court need not consider <br />"extraneous factors such as the mode of financing ", for such <br />factors "have no bearing on the issue of public purpose. <br />Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, 270 <br />N.W.2d 749, 754 n.6. (Minn. 1978) Instead, the court must <br />focus on whether the expenditures will benefit the community <br />as a whole and are related to the functions of government. <br />Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 184 -85, 89 N.W.2d 635, 643 <br />(1958). <br />19 <br />Page 21 <br />